RE/MAX, LLC v. Property Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Re/Max, LLC's Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer 13 is GRANTED. Michael Carrigan's pro se Answer 10 is STRICKEN and the Clerk is directed to remove it from the docket. Property Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc. is not permitted to appear in this action without the assistance of counsel. Defendants have until and including May 15, 2014, to file responses to the Complaint. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/22/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RE/MAX, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-419-T-33TGW

PROPERTY PROFESSIONALS OF TAMPA
BAY, INC. and MICHAEL CARRIGAN,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Re/Max, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer (Doc. # 13),
which was filed on April 1, 2014.

Neither Defendant responded

to the Motion to Strike, and the time for submitting a response
to the Motion has now expired.

The Court grants the Motion as

an unopposed Motion as follows.
Discussion
On February 19, 2014, Re/Max, LLC filed a five count,
fifteen page Complaint against Property Professionals of Tampa
Bay, Inc. and Michael Carrigan seeking injunctive and monetary
relief for trademark infringement and unfair competition under
the Lanham Act as well as for violations of Florida law.

(Doc.

# 1).
Re/Max filed return of service documents demonstrating that
it perfected service of process on both Defendants on March 3,

2014. (Doc. ## 11, 12).

On March 10, 2014, Carrigan filed a one

page pro se “Answer to Complaint” stating as follows:
1.

2.
3.
4.

While my sign is similar to re/max, it is
different, the size of my red, white and blue
stripes are different, I have a light house on my
sign, my name and my phone number
In the years that I have had this sign I have
never had anyone confuse it with a re/max sign
I have one sign that is similar and that sign has
been taken from my listing, so I do not have any
red, white and blue signs
I think this law suit is a complete waste of
time, so if re/max wants a jury trial, let them
waste their time

(Doc. # 10).
At this juncture, Re/Max seeks an Order striking Carrigan’s
Answer as non-responsive to the Complaint and also seeks a
finding that Carrigan’s pro se Answer does not constitute an
Answer on behalf of Property Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc.
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
that “the court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.”

Further, under Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, there are three ways in which a defendant can respond
to the allegations of a complaint: “the party can admit the
allegation; deny the allegation; or explain that it is without
sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation.” Clarendon
Am. Ins. Co. v. All Bros. Painting, No. 6:13-cv-934-Orl-22DAB,

2

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157668, at *7-8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2013).
“Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), a court may, upon motion of the
opposing

party,

strike

from

any

pleading

any

insufficient

defense.” Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche, S.A.S.
v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 684 F.2d 776, 779 (11th Cir.
1982).
Here, the Court agrees that Carrigan’s pro se Answer is
unresponsive to the Complaint and constitutes an insufficient
defense.

Rather than responding to the forty-two numbered

paragraphs of the Complaint, Carrigan filed a four paragraph
submission,

which

failed

to

address

Re/Max’s

Complaint

allegations. The Court therefore strikes the Answer pursuant to
Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P.
In addition, the Court notes that Carrigan is not permitted
to file an answer or any other submission on behalf of Property
Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc.

As a corporation, Property

Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc. cannot appear pro se in this
Court and must be represented by an attorney.

See Palazzo v.

Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985)(“The rule
is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity
that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must
be represented by counsel.”); Textron Fin. Corp. v. RV Having
Fun Yet, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-2-J-34TEM, 2010 WL 1038503, at *6
3

(M.D.

Fla.

Mar.

19,

2010)(“[A]

corporation’s

financial

constraints do not excuse the requirement that it have legal
representation

in

Hagerman,

F.3d

545

Court

proceedings.”);

579,

581-82

(7th

United
Cir.

States

v.

2008)(“Pro

se

litigation is a burden on the judiciary, and the burden is not
to be borne when the litigant has chosen to do business in
entity

form.

He

must

take

the

benefits.”)(internal citations omitted).1

burdens

with

the

In the event that

Property Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc. files any document,
including an answer, without the assistance of counsel, the
Court will be inclined to strike that submission.
Although the Court has stricken the pro se Answer after
finding that it failed to comply with Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P.,
and

after

determining

that

it

constituted

an

insufficient

defense to the Complaint, the Court provides Defendants with
another opportunity to respond to the Complaint, until and
including May 15, 2014.

In the event that either of the

Defendants fails to respond to the Complaint by May 15, 2014,
Re/Max may file a Motion requesting that the Clerk enter a
default pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

1

Carrigan, an individual, is free to participate in this
action without the assistance of counsel.
4

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Re/Max, LLC’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer (Doc. #
13) is GRANTED.

(2)

Michael Carrigan’s pro se Answer (Doc. # 10) is STRICKEN
and the Clerk is directed to remove it from the docket.

(3)

Property Professionals of Tampa Bay, Inc. is not permitted
to appear in this action without the assistance of counsel.

(4)

Defendants have until and including May 15, 2014, to file
responses to the Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd

day of April, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

5